Protesters, Not The Military, Have Fought For And Defended Our Freedoms (and other letters)

Jesse Wozniak of Cedar Falls writes to the Waterloo Courier about how protestors have always fought to defend our freedoms, not the military!:

I was at the anti-war protest at University of Northern Iowa Thursday before Thanksgiving, and I got the usual refrain from the militants (very few of whom were actually in the military --- isn't it so much easier to support a war when you're not going to have to fight and die?) that I should shut up because our fighting men and women are "fighting to defend our freedoms," which got me thinking about my freedoms.

Since we've invaded Iraq, I don't feel any more free. Actually, I feel much less free. The government can look at any of my spending or library records without me knowing about it, and any time President Bush wants to, he can call me an enemy combatant and lock me away for the rest of my life without a trial. Doesn't sound very free to me.

Then they counter that the military got us our freedoms in the past. But again, what freedoms are those? The freedom of speech? Nope, that was people protesting the government, many of them getting arrested for ridiculous charges like sedition. How about the 40-hour workweek and the weekend? Nope, that was unions protesting for betters hours and wages. How about the GI bill? Nope, that was veterans, not fighting overseas, but rather back home protesting their government for help in education and housing after risking their lives for us. Ending racial segregation? Nope, once again, it was protest, not military action, that gave us freedom.

We all support our military, and we all believe it is a noble cause to be willing to sacrifice your life for others; but let us all not forget that most important history lesson: It has always been protesters, not the military, who have fought for and defended our freedoms.

This is just off the scale of lunacy. Somebody get Mr Wozniak his meds!

Keene Swett of Iowa City delusionally channels what he thinks President Bush should be saying during his inauguration speech if he was forced to admit the truth:

"Firstly, to my religious creditors, I vow to replace any and all of the liberal Supreme Court justices with ultraconservatives who will, in turn, repay their debt to me by overturning Roe v. Wade and returning prayer and Bibles to our public schools ...

"To my financial creditors, I vow to work to lower taxes for those earning more than $500,000 ...

"I candidly admit that I may have made a trivial misjudgment in how the un-grateful Iraqi people would reward my benevolence in liberating them .... I shall direct the U.S. military to convince the Muslim world that we are not oil-hungry aggressors bent upon protecting our energy re-sources."

Lucas DeSpain of LeClaire states his opinion about Bush in the Quad City Times:

Record deficit, economic depression, job loss, corporate scandal, allies turning their back, pollution deregulation, skyrocketing healthcare, and the massive misinformation campaign unleashed on the world have all been a part of these last four years.

Economic depression???

John Muenster of Davenport defends John Ashcroft in the QC Times against another who is outlandishly critical of the outgoing Attorney General:

No, it is not your imagination. That high-pitched whine you hear is Robert Miller venting his spleen about Attorney General John Ashcroft. He uses the typical looney left response of demonization and character assassination with people whom he disagrees. In this case Robert Miller has spewed his hate by using terms such as “enemy of freedom,” “sneering defiler” and “quintessential gestapo officer” in describing a loyal, patriotic public servant like John Ashcroft.

Gestapo officer??? That's pretty insane rhetoric, too, if you ask me.

Diann Vennick of Boone, clearly an atheist who doesn't work for an insurance company, writes to the Des Moines Register:

I must say I found the first paragraph of Bill Reiter's Nov. 12 story on rebuilding Bradgate after the tornado quite disturbing.

He wrote: "Five months ago, a twister charged out of the sky and into Bradgate, an act of God that in 4 seconds swept away homes, pictures, yards, a park, scrapbooks, cars, siding - nearly an entire town's stock of belongings and mementos, gone in a single swoop."

An act of God?

So is Reiter alleging that God brought his wrath down upon the citizens of Bradgate in the form of a tornado?

How odd. When last I checked, according to "The Glossary of Meteorology," a tornado is "a violently rotating column of air, pendant from a cumuliform cloud or underneath a cumuliform cloud, and often (but not always) visible as a funnel cloud."

No "act of God" listed in that definition.

Perhaps Reiter should leave the preaching to the church and just stick to reporting the facts.

Dictionary.com has a listing for "Acts of God" - so does HyperDictionary, and various insurance company web sites.

Maria Cassino, who writes a guest opinion which leaves the impression that she knows some of the "animal rights" terrorists who kidnapped animals and destroyed computers at Seashore Hall, is off the frigging charts in the Daily Idiot (login: tacobell, password: gordita):

Those who stand against the Animal Liberation Front's actions, the fashionably moderate Republicrats, have had their time to speak. They have already condemned the group as "violent terrorists." It's time for a dissenting opinion.

I find it quite sad (and indicative of the gross materialism of our society) that in our country we hold material possessions in such high regard that we equate their destruction with destruction of living, feeling, sentient beings and call it "violence." The animal front picked targets carefully, destroying specifically those instruments that perpetuated torture of animals; they destroyed the outcomes of said torture ("research"), which in fact had questionable real-world applications to begin with (as there is evidence that animal research is useless in predicting the effects of certain chemicals on humans)...

I am indeed tired of the word "terrorist" being thrown around to describe the group - "intimidation in order to achieve political ends." Name one country that doesn't do this. The very nature of government is coercive. How is it acceptable for the government to use intimidation to achieve its ends (with the utilization of real violence) but not for individual people to fight for what's right utilizing nonviolent means? Why is it that the civil disobedience of the past is romanticized (the civil-rights movement, suffrage movement, etc.) and yet more recent manifestations are now condemned by people throughout the political spectrum (even by so-called "progressive liberals")? An animal-front action has never resulted in another person's death. How many people have died because of U.S. wars of aggression and "economic interest"? That's a pretty big number. How about just during this year?...

I'm not the only person who feels this way. We are out there in solidarity with the freedom fighters who were only doing what was best for the animals, although many of us are remaining silent because of the fear of persecution and accusations of involvement. The brave men and women of the animal front risk their own liberty to bring liberty to animals on a regular basis all over the United States and England. Smashed computers and a few privileged college kids having to miss a day of class is a small price to pay for this.

Somebody needs to call the FBI to look up this broad's ass with a bright light.

Leana Stormont, President of the Iowa Law Student Animal Legal Defense Fund (Christ almighty, am I reading The Onion??? Is that an actual group? Yes, it is... -Ed.) seems equally culpable in the DI:

Harriet Tubman was a terrorist. So were the Sons of Liberty. The FBI defines terrorism as violence against persons or property in furtherance of a social or political goal. According to that designation, the Underground Railroad was a terrorist network. The Boston Tea Party? Domestic terrorism...

Political direct action from animal-rights and environmental groups has never resulted in a single human casualty [Wait, did I just read that already today??? - Ed.] Was the break-in at Spence Laboratories illegal? Undoubtedly. Was it wrong? Is property destruction ever justified? Is life more important than property? If we are being honest in condemning violence, we cannot ignore the obscene suffering inflicted on feeling creatures in the name of science...

Harriet Tubman was a terrorist? Er, maybe if you were a fan of the Confederacy!

OK, that's enough nuttiness for today!